genera

[1_iron]

Listers:

Haaalllpp!! Will someone please produce a simple, black-or-white, definition
of "species?" Seems to me all else is as James states: artificial.

Jim Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Gatrelle" <gatrelle at tils-ttr.org>
To: "Leps-l" <Leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Cc: "James Adams" <JADAMS at em.daltonstate.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: genera


> James Adams wrote:
>
> Xi,
> > Perhaps you've explained this already in a previous post and I missed
> > it, but why is Mitoura a genus?
>
> There have undoubtedly been other responses already to this
> question that I simply haven't read yet (catching up after a Labor
> Day weekend), but I may have a different one.
>
> The answer to this question is simple.  Differences of
> interpretation and opinion.  But there is a more basic underlying
> idea that must be understood.  As far as the biological world is
> concerned, there *is no such thing* as a genus.  A genus, and all
> higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial* constructs used by
> humans to represent some level of relatedness.  Genera, families,
> etc. cannot evolve (with the rare hybridization being the only case
> of some fuzziness) -- only species and populations of species.
> Once species are genetically isolated, what happens to other
> evolutionary lineages that they once were connected to are of no
> importance to the evolution of that lineage (with the exception of
> some kind of ecological connection).
>
> So there will *always be* disagreement on what constitutes a
> genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs.
>
> To which Jeffery Oliver replied.
>
> Although if a genus defines a recipocally monophyletic linneage, it is
> biologically informative, especially if that clade is defined by some
> trait which may have lead to it's radiation.
>
> New stuff from Ron.
>
> In these short posts are some very important statments - which perhaps can
> easily be missed. James first.
>     "A genus, and all  higher taxonomic catergories are *artificial*
> constructs used by humans to represent some level of relatedness."
>
> And Jeff.
>     "...it is biologically informative..."
>
> There we have it. It is all about humans trying to understand, define and
> communicate to each other the what, how and why of the natural world. In
> our interest - Lepidoptera. Isn't more communication better than less?
> More knowledge and understading?  Is this only for a scientific elete - or
> is it OK for all of us to "know"?
>
> Why have we come up with words like clade and grade, geography and
> panbiogeography, Danaus and gilippus and strigosus and berenice and
> thersippus and...? To communicate "our" understanding of the natural
world.
> We have discovered fire, the wheel, and even genes. We are suposed to have
> gone beyond
> "Me Tarzan, u Jane"
> "butterfly on pretty thing".
>
> Jeff is absolutely correct - the terms inform.  Subgenera?  Subspecies?
> Absolutamente!  James is almost on the money - "Once species are
> genetically isolated, what happens to other evolutionary lineages that
they
> once were connected to are of no importance to the evolution of _that_
> [newly forming] lineage."  The statment should be: Once a _sub_species is
> genetically arrived into being, what happens to other subspecies of that
> species (still connected _only_ because they can still reproduce viable X
> subspecific offspring) are of no importance to the _evolution_ of the new
> forming linage.
>
> Species do not become species. Subspecies become species. Not "in a way"
> but in factual and intellectual truth, "our" terms of subfamily,
subgenera,
> and subspecies are the most _informative_ areas of study and
communication.
> No wonder folks just see Pearls and not tharos and coyta (heck selenis
> would do).  The new communication is toward ignorance not information.
> Strigosus, berenice and gilippus are evolutionally far apart - gilippus is
> only stuck in the following ( D. _g._ strigosus, D. _g._ berenice, D. _g._
> gilippus) to "tell us"  "by us"  they all came from the same parent (not
> gilippus). We have no idea where each are GOING to. To apply "Queen" to
all
> three of these very different organisms in wrong because it is confusing
> via dumbing down. Striated Queen has been used in may popular books for
> years - so who scrapped it?
>
> Callophrys, Mitoura, Loranthomitoura are all modes of communication _but_
> based on some rational _published_ definition and explanation. Full circle
> back to Xi's question. Why Mitoura?  His question was _specifically_
> relative to it not being used in the Butterflies of Canada.  The lack of
> use there was pointed out by Xi per the authors ref to the Warren and
> Robbins article. Which I in turn pointed out was only a tiny note about a
> "presumed" hybrid with absolutely _no_ definition let alone explanation of
> any generic conclusions whatsoever. The B. of Canada's basing their
generic
> usage or lack thereof is thus based on nothing.
>
> BUT, is not this all just, as James and many other often say, just a
matter
> of  "...differences of interpretation and opinion."?  A yes and an
emphatic
> _no_!  For there to be an interpretation there must first be something to
> interpret - data - scientific data. Where there are published papers there
> can be, will be and should be interpretation but not _alteration_. One can
> not read something into a paper that is not there. Re opinion. There is no
> place for opinion without evidence in science period. Hypotheses and
theory
> are informed questions based on rational observations that point to a
> _suspected_  fact. Well, the earth is flat looked like a good theory -
till
> someone went around it. Once something has been proved as fact NO ONE is
> free to have an opinion contrary to it - except religious zealots and
> idiots.
>
> Email - how unsuited to this. I'll quit. One other thing though. If all
> these ranks etc are really just man made (professor so n so made) and
there
> is "no such thing as" like James said, _and_ if all our taxonomy and
> systematics is just "interpretation and opinion" anyway ---- then why all
> the fuss (from Dr. so n so or so-s ) about Peer Review???????     It is
> either crap or science. And if science it has to have rules and absolutes
> as well as theory. This can not always be communicated to the masses in
its
> most fine frog hair splitting elements - but it should be reflected as
much
> as possible. Thus, Mitoura and Striated Queen.
>
> Ron
>
> PS  James and I agree "So there will *always be* disagreement on what
> constitutes a
> genus, family, etc. because they are subjective human constructs."  I am
> just saying let's have more Constructs not less (technical and popular),
> and let's make sure new Constructs actually have a blue print published
> someplace.  James and I have discussed this in private too -- I don't
sweat
> the load any more than he does - I just come across on line like I do  ;-)
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
>


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl